To schools they deliver in bulk. Sending out 20 million boxes a month sounds entirely different to me. Not saying they can't do it, just a little surprised it results in savings, especially at the start.

The point is that proles arenít going to actually want this healthy food. So even if it costs more to deliver per meal, eventually the number of people on the program will be much smaller than it is today.

When you look at second and third order effects of bad nutritional choices, having vast quantities of poor people on diets that do NOT lead to diabetes and other lifestyle diseases is a pretty fucking solid outcome.

not really. the working-class rustbelt voters who turned the midwest from blue to red didn't vote to have their own asses 'whipped.'

they voted for Trump because he seemed less likely than traditional republicans to spend his time punitively and pointlessly immiserating proles, like themselves, in this way -- while rewarding plutocrats.

Oh come on now. We all know the EBT is just a thinly disguised "dole" cash payout and not meant to feed poors who have a dozen other ways to get free food like school lunches, etc.. (shiltib forced by Trump to tell the truth, again)

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about and have bought into the shitlib fantasy that Trump voters are all poor proles. A lot ARE proles, but they aren't necessarily poor and, if they are, they probably have a lot of pride re self sufficiency. People on foodstamps don't tend to vote.

nutrition and education are the 2 most important factors in children's futures. pro tip : both are SPS these days (and no, I'm not talking about little trayvarius not getting enough fiber, niggers can stay fit without nutrition and why the fuck would we educate them)

Seems CR. Go to any supermarket in a shitty neighborhood. You'll see wheezing, obese, diabetic slugs swiping SNAP cards for a half dozen 2-liter sodas and assorted junk food. Or, linger long enough, and someone will ask to swipe their card for your purchase in exchange for $20 so they can buy drugs.

We need a social safety net to prevent people from starving in the street, but SNAP is really only accelerating additional costs to society, like obesity/diabetes/drug addiction. They're also feeding their kids this shit and making them obese, expensive drains on society.

I was a lib in college but now consider myself center right. This mostly occurred as my reaction to SJWs and SHITlibs co-opting the old school blue collar Dem party. I just think Trump is retarded and like to troll about it, even though I agree with many of his policy positions (when he manages to actually articulate them).

This will do wonders to decrease the size of government. They can just have the USPS pick up some RED BLOODED HOMEGROWN ORGANIC AMERICAN ZUCCHINI at the beginning of they're route and then deliver it to Poor's along the way. Much better than are currently t corrupt system, TBH.

See, this is what I don't get about libs. You admit it is a good idea. Even if it does funnel money to big ag for a "subpar" product, chances are the end results are still better for poor people's health than the current system.

The problems with SNAP are a lot less about nutrition - despite all the judgmental assholes looking over poors' shoulders at the checkout screaming otherwise - and are a lot more about how the system ends up being gamed for cash and/or doesn't end up serving the people it needs to.

I'm 100% in favor of this. The poorest people in this country are the least educated and also the most unhealthy. Ask any of your doctor friends how much of a strain fat diabetic poors put on the healthcare system.

I have a surgeon friend that has story after story of inner city fats coming in with horrible conditions that need insane surgeries (because they inexplicably wait to do anything about it), and then completely ignore all post-op instructions, just go back to drinking, smoking, soda pop, and then their wounds abcese or they get some other fucked up issue they wait way too long again, and then go back to the emergency room demanding the hospital fix them.

These people should not be give a monthly allowance with free rein to buy whatever they want. Sorry, but they are too stupid, and are a huge strain and burden on society.

If in the process, these food packs also prop up Big Agriculture, then good. Fuck libs.

Edit: this screed applies to white poors in Appalachia and the south as well. They are just as bad with shit diets and health issues that are 100% preventable.

this sounds like an idea that would be 180 if it worked, but will actually be an inefficient boondoggle with massive cost overruns and shittier quality food delivered than recipients selected for themselves, and that the GOP will rail against and blame on "libs" in 10-20 years.

Itís not about saving money, itís about forcing rancid shitlib cunts like Schumer and Pelosi to admit that the goal of food stamps isnít to provide nutrition to Americans but rather to allow their foreign-born and/or subliterate clients to scam taxpayers. I donít care if it costs 5x as much, let them eat broccoli.

Spending money in America on Americans with products made by American farmers and shipped by American companies and truckers (or even the Post Office) while cutting off gibs for shit food and the Bindi-scam cycle while using bugman inspired packaging ("It's like loot crates for welfare cases, guys!") is a win all around. More classic Trump.

I'm not opposed to the idea of the government providing food rather than EBT cards. If it can be done cheaper than the current system, it is worth exploring.

But reptiles who support a government bureaucrat delivering rations to people's doorsteps will have some explaining to do. And if this system costs taxpayers more in the long run, doubly so. Fiscal responsibility, right?

I think this sounds great, especially if it can be shown to be cheaper than the existing program (which I think is likely, as fraud will go way down and since people aren't able to use it fraudulently anymore, demand will also go down).

The knock-on effects of better health, food in the house for kids whose parents might otherwise flip the food stamps for money, supporting American agriculture (hint: that's Trump country), and less money sloshing around in the illicit economy (drugs, weapons, tax dodges at the corner store, whatever) in general are just pure win, too.

Plus if it really does come in a Blue Apron style box, it's hard for shitlibs to argue against because they love that stuff, and regularly whine about "food deserts" which this also addresses.

I'd agree with you on almost any other product but food, but the government already buys up large amounts of agricultural products (as a subsidy) that it doesn't use. We could argue the wisdom of that program, but given that they already do it, might as well hand it out.

iím too lazy to read through this thread but iím pretty sure objectively retarded purported conservatives (ie trumpmos) love this idea precisely for the stigmatization angle. even though the feds will almost certainly run it like shit and itll represent a gigantic, wasteful transfer to a powerful interest group (agriculture) from the american tax payer. like goddamn how did you end up this way? stupid, unprincipled AND spiteful at the same time????

3. you criticize trumpmos as being stupid, unprincipled, and spiteful, despite not reading the thread, and then make a tenuous conclusion that giving poors actual food is objectionable because it will somehow transfer money to this powerful interest group known as agriculture

only a shitlib would be so against replacing food stamps with food because trump came up with it.

iím almost indifferent to stigmatization though i acknowledge it exists and is probably counterproductive to actually getting poor people off the dole. i think we should pick the best public policy even if it hurts peoples feelings though. but iím absolutely not for giving money to american farmers and federal agencies just because angry virgins see stigmatization as an end instead of a cost of policy lmao.

literally 100% of mainstream economists (or anyone with half a brain for that matter) would tell you direct payments in the form of EBT cards >>>>>>> retarded bartering by a federal agency with way more expensive goods sourced only from domestic growers via a some process IM SURE will pay no attention to their political contributions.

my ďtenuous conclusionĒ about this naked ploy for breitbart cheers is 100000000000000000x better grounded than your ďlogical inferenceĒ that iím not just a dude that thinks mitt romney would be a quindecillion times better president than donald j trump.

1. iím no expert but iím guessing thereís volumes of econ/psych research says positive reinforcement or some other alternative to humiliating poor people is more effective at getting them off the dole. all things equal i think weíre rich as fuck and should be nice because why the fuck not? especially if the alternative is starving mobs of bums fucking shit up left and right.

iíd happily pick the overall best policy even if it meant round the clock abject public humiliation though

positive vs negative reinforcement are not mutually exclusive, nor are the people being subjected to either the only factors in this. the people paying the taxes that pay for the meals should be a consideration, too

you're a complete idiot. Welfare (snap) is a constant positive reinforcement feedback loop of do nothing --> eat trash --> feel good. There is zero incentive for a positively reinforced indigent to get off the dole

Conservatives would never support a massive program like this. It completely misses the mark of reducing the government's footprint and actually expands it by forcing poor people to eat "healthy" food at greater cost than EBT cards. Why would the same people who freaked out over Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch program support an expensive government prescribed food package?

What's so bad about this? If the claim is it will be inefficient, isn't EBT and SNAP inefficient for the reasons already stated in this thread?

Trump, instead of outright scrapping foodstamps etc. (which he should) instead offers a compromise. Libs complain reps don't compromise. Here's a compromise that arguably is better for the children as it ensures they won't suffer from food deserts or hunger as they'll receive nutrional meals regularly.

What if mom has to work 3 jobs and has no time to buy groceries so the kids eat only convenience store junk food? Seems like a better alternative. Everyone in this thread knows that its the industriousness of our poorest that prevents them from having time to eat a good meal. This will overwhelmingly help minorities as well, but libs claim trump is racist, so in a strange turn of events, libs would rather not compromise and actually harm our minorities?